|
3177 DEPUBLISHED The presence of an object surgically implanted for a therapeutic purpose in a patient's body, but implanted improperly so that it has no therapeutic effect, does not toll the statute of limitations on the patient's action for medical malpractice; a plaintiff's subjective suspicion that his/her suffering is the result of medical malpractice does not trigger the discovery section of the statute of limitations, if that suspicion is allayed by the plaintiff's reasonable investigation.CitationDUNCAN v SPIVAK (Misplaced Staple) 94 CA4 245 [See: CCP 340.5, 364; Trantafello v Medical Center 182 CA3 315; Kitzig v Nordquist 81 CA4 1384, T/AT 8/00]
|
|
